Tag Archives: Habitat Preservation

ECOS and Habitat 2020 Letter re Natomas North Precinct Plan, Dec 16, 2015 and Call to Action for hearing on Mar 23, 2016

CALL TO ACTION: On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Sacramento County will look at a new proposal to expand the Urban Services Boundary. The boundary was created in the early 1990’s to try to limit the sprawl of urbanization in the Sacramento region.

Please voice your opposition to this proposal at this critical time. Tweet, Call, Email, Write or Post on Facebook and tag County Supervisors if you can!

Attend the 2PM workshop in the Board of Supervisors chambers on Wednesday if you are able — all bodies and testimonies are appreciated!

We need to halt urban sprawl in our beautiful valley, not add to it. The proposal is not consistent with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ recently adopted transportation plan, or the Sacramento Air Quality Management District’s plan.

Read the article by Rob Burness of ECOS and published March 22, 2016 in the Sacramento Bee, summarizing the latest:
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article67576377.html

Some Background

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is considering the entitlement request of North Natomas landowners to expand the Urban Service Boundary, amend the General Plan, prepare a specific plan, and rezone 5600 acres to allow for the development of a new suburban community of 55,000 people.

Why Expanding the Urban Service Boundary is Significant and Precedent Setting

Sacramento’s adoption of an Urban Service Boundary in 1993 represented one of the first California General Plans to define a long term boundary for urban growth in a metropolitan setting. It provided sufficient land within the USB for many decades worth of growth. The USB provided the potential, with carefully considered phased growth, to at least triple the unincorporated urban population in the County.

By and large the Urban Service Boundary has been an effective planning policy. Folsom did expand beyond the boundary south of US Highway 50—as a city it is not bound by the same policies—and the County approved one minor expansion for a truck stop along Interstate 80. When Elk Grove City tried to expand its sphere way beyond the USB, the boundary’s importance weighed in the issues brought before LAFCo and their ultimate decision to deny the expansion. The boundary was an important benchmark for the analysis that led to the Water Forum Agreement, and has been, as intended, a valuable tool for planning sewer interceptors and other urban infrastructure over the last 22 plus years.

The Natomas Project would expand the Urban Service Boundary to allow a new “city” of 55,000 people. It would send the message to other cities that the USB is just a line on a map and not a significant delimiter for urban development. For all of us who want to see responsible, efficient, phased growth that gives infill a chance, moving forward with the Natomas project at this time sends exactly the wrong message. So, for us and many Sacramento residents, moving the boundary IS a big deal.

ECOS submitted a comment letter on December 16, 2015 that can be viewed here.

Capture (1)

 

Sacramento County Plastic Bag Ban

Yes, the City of Sacramento has banned plastic bags as of January 1st, 2016!

The County of Sacramento, however, has yet to make the same move.

ECOS fully supports the single-use plastic bag ban in Sacramento County.

Here’s your chance to weigh in on the burden of plastic bags. Contact the Board of Supervisors in the form of a phone call, e-mail, letter, or attending their workshop on Tuesday March 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm (in the Board of Supervisors chambers). Show where YOU stand on plastic bags! Any help is greatly appreciated.

As you may know, the organization Californians Against Waste is working diligently on upholding the statewide plastic bag ban. That effort involves assisting local jurisdictions in implementing their own bans. Sacramento County is en route to adopting a single-use plastic bag ban that will eliminate plastic bag litter in the rivers, parks, and communities throughout the area. It will also save the county countless tax dollars spent to clean-up the 4 million plastic bags that are distributed weekly in unincorporated Sacramento County. And of course, the benefit to wildlife will be priceless.

District 1, Phil Serna, (916) 874-5485, SupervisorSerna[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 2, Patrick Kennedy, (916) 874-5481, SupervisorKennedy[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 3, Susan Peters, (916) 874-5471, susanpeters[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 4, Roberta MacGlashan, (916) 874-5491, macglashanr[at]saccounty[dot]net
District 5, Don Nottoli, (916) 874-5465, nottolid[at]saccounty[dot]net

Some useful information:

  • Single-use plastic bags are expensive to clean up, environmentally damaging, and an easily preventable source of litter.
  • California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery found that less than 5% of these single-use plastic bags are recycled in California.
  • Even when properly disposed of, bags tend to blow out of trash cans, solid waste vehicles and off the face of the County’s Keifer Landfill landing in the county’s parks and waterways.
  • Much of the county’s plastic eventually washed out through the Delta into San Francisco Bay and then to coastal waters.
  • 147 cities and counties, including the City of Sacramento, have adopted local restrictions on single-use plastic bags which have been to be both popular and effective.
  • In unincorporated Sacramento County, almost 4 million bags are distributed every week, which means that each day without a ban contributes about 540,000 bags to the problem.
  • The local Material Recovery Facility shuts down on average 6 times per day to remove plastic bags from their sorting equipment.
  • The Sacramento County Environmental Commission recommends this ordinance.

Flex your citizen power. Encourage the Board of Supervisors to pass a plastic bag ban in Sacramento County!

Contact:
Genevieve Abedon
Californians Against Waste
genevieveabedon[at]cawrecycles[dot]org

Feb 11 Update from Trees Sacramento

February 11, 2016

Dear Tree Advocates

Trees Sacramento continues to promote a strong tree ordinance with City Staff and Council members. Our letter was signed by six regional environmental organizations, supported by 10 neighborhood associations, and an additional 11 individual community leaders.  Staff has indicated that they hoped to take another version of the tree ordinance to the Law and Legislation Committee in March and to City Council in April 2016.  This version may include some of our recommendations but not others.

In a recent meeting with Council Member Jeff Harris, we were encouraged that some of our recommendations are being considered and some may be incorporated into the next revision of the Staff’s proposed ordinance.  There appears to be support at the City that  trees on city-owned properties would be treated equally with the same protections as city street trees.  Staff is reexamining the issue of requiring replacement and mitigation in the ordinance for removal of protected trees (rather than leaving this to the discretion of the director).

However, staff is still opposed to other important recommendations such as a notification of tree removals, requiring trees in all development projects, and making tree removal factors (criteria) objective and quantifiable.

Upper Land Park Neighbors, Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association,  Trees4Sacramento and ECOS also attended the Parks and Recreation Commission hearing when staff presented the tree ordinance changes they seek.  Most commissioners were strongly in favor of better notification of tree removals to community.  In addition, some members indicated they did not want to hear tree appeals because they lack expertise to make informed decisions.

We are making progress,  but we will have to wait and review the new draft ordinance and prepare a response when it is available.  

In particular we want to ensure that the ordinance revises support and are consistent with our General Plan policies and Climate Action Plan.  Our General Plan policies in question are underlined below:

ER 3.1.2 Manage and Enhance the City’s Tree Canopy

The City shall continue to plant new trees, ensure new developments have sufficient right-of-way width for tree plantings, manage and care for all publicly owned trees, and work to retain healthy trees. The City shall monitor, evaluate and report, by community plan area and citywide, on the entire tree canopy in order to maintain and enhance trees throughout the City and to identify opportunities for new plantings. (RDR/MPSP/SO)

ER 3.1.3 Trees of Significance

The City shall require the retention of City trees and Heritage Trees by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or appropriate remediation. (RDR/MPSP)

ER 3.1.4 Visibility of Commercial Corridors

The City shall balance the tree canopy of the urban forest with the need for visibility along commercial corridors, including the selection of tree species with elevated canopies. (RDR)

ER 3.1.6 Urban Heat Island Effects.

The City shall continue to promote planting shade trees with substantial canopies, and require, where feasible, site design that uses trees to shade rooftops, parking facilities, streets, and other facilities to minimize heat island effects. (RDR/PI)

ER 3.1.9 Funding

The City shall provide adequate funding to manage and maintain the city’s urban forest on City property, including tree planting, training, maintenance, removal, and replacement. (SO/FB)

 THANK YOU  for all your help in getting the improvements to the current staff ordinance.  BE AWARE — we will need your help for the upcoming two meetings  – to  get people to send support letters and attend these important meetings.

Trees Sacramento

trees4sacto[at]sbcglobal[dot]net

Please visit our Trees Sacramento page for more information about this issue.